If you begin by assuming that a free market will automagically acquire someone with monopoly control who can prevent all competitors from acting, you've got a rather different view of free markets than I do, and you're basically assuming that anarchy is unmaintainable in economies, from which the obvious conclusion is "so don't even try." There are people who believe the same about political anarchy. However, I don't see you presenting any reasoning for the belief that a free market will become non-free and acquire a head. Rather the opposite appears to have been the case in most environments where the economic actors don't have political actors supporting their bids for monopoly. At 11:42 PM 1/10/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
Given that anarchist don't support a 'head' in regards to human activities *and* that a free market monopolizes thus creating a 'head' it is clear that if we apply the ideas of human society (ie political systems) to economics we derive a fundamental conflict, that a anarchist in the economic sphere is left with no choice but to agree that economic systems must be managed and creates a 'head' either by plan or monopolistic fiat.
Therefore the original thesis that such political models are applicable to economic ones is flawed. It simply is not possible for an economic system to exhist without some sort of 'head' or guiding structure. This is fundamentaly at odds with the definition and spirit of anarchy.
Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639